C o m p a r a t I v e t y p o L o g y
Download 0.58 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
«ҚИЁСИЙ ТИПОЛОГИЯ»
|
«ҚИЁСИЙ ТИПОЛОГИЯ» ФАНИ БЎЙИЧА МАЪРУЗА МАТНЛАРИ C O M P A R A T I V E T Y P O L O G Y Compiled by Gafurjan Satimov, up-dated and revised by Nasir Kambarov
The word typology consists of two Greek morphemes: a) typos means type and b)logos means science or word. Typology is a branch of science which is typical to all sciences without any exception. In this respect their typological method is not limited with the sphere of one science. It has a universal rise. So typology may be divided into: 1. Non-linguistic and 2. Linguistic typology
Non-linguistic typology is the subject matter of the sciences except linguistics. Linguistic typology is a new branch of general linguistics, which studies the systems of languages comparatively, also finds common laws of languages and establishes differences and similarities between them.
Typological Classification of Languages In linguistics we may come across many terms as to the terminological nature of linguistic typology. They are: 1. Comparative Method, 2. Comparative-historical Method, 3. Comparative (or Contrastive) Linguistics, 4. Comparative Typology, 5. Comparative Grammar, 6. Confrontational grammar, 7. Descriptive-Comparative Linguistics and so on. The terms used in Russian and Uzbek are not exact either.
They are: сравнительная грамматика, сопоставительная грамматика, сравнительно-историческое язикознание, контрастивная лингвистика, сравнителная типология in Russian and =иѐсий типология, =иѐсий-тарихий тилшунослик, =иѐсий грамматика, =иѐсий тилшунослик and so on in Uzbek.
According to the notion of comparison of linguistics phenomenon and the aim directed on we may classify linguistic typology into the following parts. a) genetic or genealogical typology, b) structural typology, c) areal typology and d) comparative typology. Geneological typology is a branch of linguistic typology which studies the similarities and the relationship between the related languages. It is applicated to the systems of genetically related languages. Geneological typology developed from the comparative-historical linguistics dominated during the 19th century in Europe. It‟s origin was stimulated by the discovery of Sanskrit, the ancient classical language of India. The discovery of Sanskrit disclosed the possibility of a comparative study of languages. The concept of relative languages was confirmed by the existence in India of a sister of the familiar languages of Europe e.g. Sanskrit “ mata” means “mother”, in the accus. case “matarum” dvau - two trayah - three as ti - he is etc.
Before the discovery of Sanskrit European linguistics possessed very vague similarities for the current grammars built on the Greek model. They didn‟t set clearly the features of each languages. It is worth to mention that at the same time Sanskrit discovery gave rise to confuse notions of linguistic relation which lived for a brief time that European languages were derived from Sanskrit. But this opinion gave way to a correct explanation, namely Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, and others were later forms of one prehistorical language. Comparativists gave two kinds of classification of languages -geneological and
Geneological classification deals with the family relationship of languages which descend from one common ancestor. It distributes languages into different families. Morphological classification deals with the classification of languages according to their structural features instead of a geneological origin. According to the morphological classification the languages are divided into: isolating (Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, etc.), analytic (Russian, English, German, etc.), agglutinative (Turkic languages) and others.
Genetic Typology compares the systems of languages in two ways: diachronically and s synchronically. But in the second case genetic relationship is not taken into consideration. Structural Linguistic Lypology can be understood as a systematisation of linguistic phenomenon from different languages according to their specific structural features. Structural typological research makes it possible to establish some traits that are universal, unique and special. Language Universals
The languages of the world present us with a vast array of structural similarities and differences/ One way of answering this question is to adopt a historical persrective, investigating the origins of language and pointing to the importance of linguistic change/ An alternative approach is to make a detailed description of the similarities or differences, regardless of their historical antecedents, and proceed from there to generalize about the structure and function of human language. There are two main ways of approaching the similarities and differences of language structures: If we look for the structural features that all or most languages have in common, so we are searching for the languge universals; If we focus our attention on the features that differentiate the languages so we are involving ourselves in language typology. In principle, the two approaches are complementary (going together), but sometimes they are associated with different theoretical conceptions of the nature of linguistic enquiry.
As has been mentioned above the notion of language universals is closely connected with the process of unification of linguistic facts with a process of establishing common features between the systems of different languages. With the process of generalisation of linguistic phenomenon the investigations or language universals began at the end of 1950 s The main event in this field is the international conference held in April, 1961 in New-York. At this conference a report called “Memorandum” concerning the language universals was presented by the American linguists J. Greenburg, Ch. Ostgood and J. Genkins. In the former Soviet Union B.A. Uspensky published his monographic research “Структурная типология язика” (1965). In 1966 there appeared J. Greenberg‟s book “Language universals with special references to feature hierarchies”. These works were followed by a number of other research works published as articles and special volumes. According to the “Memorandum” language universals are by their nature summary statements about characteristics or tendencies shared by all human speakers. As such they constitute the most general laws of a science of linguistics. Language universals study the universal features in the systems of different languages of the world. They find similarities which are typical of the absolute or overwhelming majority of languages. Types of universals are as follows: 1. Definitional universals, 2. empirical universals.
Definitional universals are connected with the fact which the speaker possesses and uses his extrapolation. It means that linguistic phenomenon exists in the system of those languages which the scholar does not know. E.g. Indo-European languages have the opposition of the vowels and consonants. This phenomenon may be considered to be systems of other languages of the world. Empirical universals are connected with the mental or imaginary experience that is a definite linguistic feature may exist in all languages, secondly he or she does not know if this or that feature exists in all languages. E.g. composition may exist in all languages in spite of their morphological structure.
Unrestricted universals. According to this type of universals linguistic supposition of hypotheses is not restricted. E.g. all languages have vowels or for all languages the numbers of phonemes is not fewer than 10 or more than 70 or every language has at least 2 vowels.
The universalist ideal is to be able to make short and interseting statements that hold, without exeption, for all languages. In practice, very few such statements can be made; short ones often seem to state the obvious (e.g.: All languages have vowels); and the interesting ones often seem to require considerable technical qualification.
Most of the time, in fact it is clear that absoluta (or exeptionless) universals do not exist. As a result, many lanuists look instead for trends or tendencies across languages - „relative‟ universals - which can be givenstatistical expression. For example, in over 99% of languages whose word order has been studied, grammatical subjects precede objects. And in a phonological study of over 300 languages less than 3% have no nasal consonant. Linguistic features that are ststistically dominant in this way are often referred to as „unmarked‟, and grammar that incorporates norms of this kind is knownas a „core grammar‟.
Substantive. Substantive universals comprise the set of categories that is needed in order to analyse a language, such as „noun‟, „quesyion‟, „first- person‟, „antonym‟ and „vowel‟. Do all languages have nouns and vowels? The answer seems to be „yes‟. But certain categories often thought of as universal turn out not to be so: not all languages have case endings, prepositions or future tenses, for example, there are certain surprising limitations or the range of vowels and consonants that typically occur. Analytical considerations must also be born in mind. Do all languages have words? The answer depends on how the concept of „word‟ is defined.
way in which a language analysis can be made - the factors that have to be written into a grammar, if it is to account sucsessfully for the way sentences work in a language. For examp;e, because all languages make statements and ask related questions (such as „The car is ready vs Is the car ready? some means has to be found to show the relationship between such pairs. Most grammars derive question structures by some kind of transformation. (In the above example move the verb to the beginning of the sentence.) It is claimed that such transformations are necessary in order to carry out the analysis of these (and other kinds of ) structures, as Chomskyan theory does, then they would be proposed as formal universals. Other cases include the kinds of rules used in grammar or the different levels recognized by a theory.
their intention being to find constant relationships between two or more properties of the language. For example, three of the universals proposed in a list of 45 by the American linguist Joseph Greenberg(1919- ) are as follows:
Universal 17.: With overwelming more-than-chance frequency, languages with dominant order VSO have the adjective after the noun.
Universal 31.: If either the subject or object noun agrees with the verb in gender, then, the adjectivenalways agrees with the noun in gender. Universal 43.: If a language has gender categories in the noun, it has gender categories in the pronoun.
As is suggested by the phraising, implicational statements have a statistical basis and for this reason are sometimes referred to as „ststistical‟ universals. Universal implication involve the relationship between two characteristics. If a language has a certain characteristics, it has also some particular characteristics but not vice-versa i.e. the presence of the second doesn‟t imply the presence of the first. E.g. If a language has a category of dual number it has also a category of plural but not vice-versa. Such implications are numerous particularly in the phonological aspect of languages.
comparison of languages.
Since the end of 18 th century, the chief concern has been to explain the nature of of linguistic diversity. This was the focus of comparative philology and dialectology, and it led to eraly attempts to set up genetic and structural typologies of languages.
Comparative method is a way of systematically comparing a series of languages in order to prove a historical relationship between them. Scholars begin by identifying a set of formal similarities and differences between languages and try to work out (or reconstruct) an earlier stage of development from which all the forms could have derived. The process is known as internal reconstruction. When languages have been shown to have a common ancestor they are said to be
The clearest case are those where the parent language is known to exist. For example, on the basis of various words for “father” in the Romance languages, it is possible to see how they all derived from the Latin word “pater”. If Latin no longer existed, it would be possible to reconsruct a grat deal of its form, by comparing large numbers of words in this way. Exactly the same reasoning is used for cases where the parent language does not exist, as when the forms in Latin, Greek, Sanscrit, Welsh, etc., are compared to reconstruct the IndoEuropean form *”pater”. IE *pater
Sanscrit Latin
Gothic Old Irish pat^er piter
pater fadar
fathir
pater
Italian
Spanish French
Portuguese Catalon
padre padre
pere pai
pare
How the reconstructed forms were pronounced is a matter debate; some scholars are happy to assign phonetic values to the forms and pronounce them as if they were part of a real language; others argue that the forms are little more than abstract formulae, summerizing the sets of correspondences.
stressed the variety of languages in the world, partly in reaction against the traditions of the 19 th century prescriptivism,where one language, commonly Latin, had been regarded as a standard of exellence.
Since the 1950 s, the focus on diversity has been replaced by a research paradigm, stemming from the work of the American linguist Noam Chomsky (1928-), in which the nature of Lingustic Universals holds a central place. Chomsky‟s generative theory of language proposes a single set of rules from which all the grammatical sentences in a language can be derived. The „rules‟ of a genetive grammar have no implication of sosial correctnes. They are objective descriptions of the grammatical patterns that occur. In order to define these rules in an accurate and economical way, a grammar has to rely on certain general principles - abstract constraints that govern the it takes and the nature of the categories with which it operates. These principles are concieved as universal properties of language-the properties that are biologically necessary and thus innate (natural).
The notion of Universals is important, it is argued, not only because it deepens our understanding of language inits own right, but because it provides an essential first step in the task of understanding human intellectual capacity. In Chomsky‟s view, therefore, the aim of linguistics is to go beyond the study of individual languages, to determine what the universal properties of language are, and to establish a „universal grammar‟, that would account for the range of linguistic variation that is humanly possible. The question is simple: What are the limits on human language variability? Languages do not make use of all possible sounds, sound sequences or word orders. Can we work oyt the reasons? It might be possible to draw a line between the patterns that are essential features of language, and those that no language ever makes use of it. Or perhaps there is a continium between these extremes, with some features being found in most ( but not all ) languages, and some being found in very few.
The Port-Royal Grammar
Contemporary ideas about the nature of linguistic universals have several antecedents in the works of the 17 th century thinkers. The „Grammaire generale et raisonee‟(1660) is widely recognized as the most influential treatise of this period. It is often referred to as the „Port-Royal grammar‟, because it was written by scholars who belonged to the community of intellectuals and religious established between 1637-1660 in Port royal, Versalles.
Although published anonimously, the authorship of the grammar has been ascribed to Claude Lancellot (1615-95) and Antoine Arnould (1612-94). Its substitute, refering to „that which is common to all languages, and their principle differences... „ provides a neat summary of the current preoccupation with universals and typology. However, the approach of modern lingustics is less concerned with how language relates to logic and reality and more with its arbitrary properties.
The distinction between typological and universalist approaches to language study is doubtless ultimately an arbitrary one; and bothe have considerable insights to offer. But the two approaches, as currently practised, differ greatly in their procedures.
Typologists typically study a wide range of languages as part of their enquiry, and tend to make generalizations that deal with the more observable aspects of structure, such as word order, parts of speech,and types of sound.
In contrust with the empirical breadth of such studies, universalists rely on in-depth studies of single languages, especially in the field of grammar... English, in particular, is a common language of exemplificcation and tend to make generalizations about the more abstract, underlying properties of language.
As to N. Chomsky English is a human language, it must therfore incorporate all universal properties of language, as well as thoese individual features that make it specifically „English‟. One way of finding out about these properties, therefore, is the detailed study of single languages. The more languages we introduce into our enquiry, the more difficult it can become to see the central features behind the welter of individual differences. On the other hand, it can be argued that the detailed study of single languages is enevitably going to produce a distorted picture.
There are features of English, for exampe, that are not commonly met with in other languages, such as the use of only one inflexional ending in the present tense.(3 rd person sing. as in „she runs‟) or the absense of a second-person singular/plural distinction (cf.: French lu/vous). Without a typological perspective, some way, it is notpossible to anticipate the extent to which sense of priorities will be upset. If languages were relatively homogeneous entities, like samples iron ore, this would not be a problem. But typologists argue, languages are unpredictably irregular and idiosyncratic. Under these circumstanstances, a focus on breadth, rather than depth, is desirable. Comparative typology compares the systems of two or more concrete languages and creates common typological laws. The comparison of the system of languages is based on small systems, i.e. small systems of two languages are compared first of all. E.g. the category of mood in English is considered to be a small system. Having completed the comparison of languages investigator takes the third language to compare and so on. Comparative typology is sometimes characterised by some scholars as characterology which deals with the comparison of the systems only.
Comparatie-typological Analysis of the Phonological Systems of English and Uzbek
In the linguistic literature phoneme is defined as the smallest distinctive unit. Unlike the other bigger units of language as morpheme and word it doesn‟t have its meaning but helps us to distinct the meaning of words and morphemes. Comp:
бўл(та=симла) etc. From the acoustic and articulatory points of view the phonemic system of any language may be divided into vowels and consonants
The System of Vowel Phonemes From the acoustic point of the view vowels are speech sounds of pure musical tone. Their oscillographic melody tracings are characterised by periodically. From the point of view of articulation vowels are speech sounds in the production of which there are no noise producing obstructions. The obstructions by means of which vowels are formed may be of two kinds: 1) the fourth obstruction without which neither vowels nor voiced consonants are formed; 2) the third obstruction characteristic of both: English and Uzbek vowels; The channels formed in the mouth cavity for vowel production by moving a certain part of the tongue and keeping the lips in a certain position cannot be regarded as obstructions. They change the shape and volume of the resonance chamber, and in this way, help to achieve the timbre (or quality) of voice, characteristic of the vowel in question.
In modern English we distinguish 20 vowel phonemes: 10 monophthongs [ e,i,u, ] 9 diphthongs [ ei, ai,au, ], 2 diphthongoids [ i:, u:]
In modern Uzbek we find 6 vowel letters and corresponding ^ vowel phonemes [ a, o, у, е, э, и ]
The main principles of classifying the vowel phonemes are as follows: a) according to the part (place of articulation or horizontal movement) of the tongue; b) according to the height (vertical movement) of the tong; c) according to the position of lips; d) according to quantity (length) of vowels.
1.according to the part (horizontal movement) of the tongue vowel may be divided into:
central [ ], front[ ] and back [ ] vowels.
2.according to the
height of
the tongue
into: close(high) [ medial [ ] and open [ ] vowels. In the languages, in which not only the quality but also quantity of vowels is of certain phonemic or positional value,-one more subdivision appears. 3. according to vowel length the vowels may be divided into short [ ] and long [ ] vowels. (In this case it belongs only to the English vowels as far as in Uzbek the length of the vowel is of no importance). 4. according to the position of the lips vowels may be : rounded (or labilialized) [ ] and unrounded (non-labialized) [ ] vowels. 5. we may also subdivide vowels according to their tensity or laxity into: lax [ ] and tense [ ] vowels. Vowel quality, vowel length and the position of the lips are denoted in the classification by transcription symbols of the phoneme itself. For instance is a long diphtongized vowel phoneme, pronounced with lips unrounded and is a rounded long diphtongized vowel, while and are an unrounded monophtongs. The first and the second principles constitute the basis of any vowel classification. They were first suggested by H. Sweet (1898).
Front Mixed
Back Close
Mid.
Open
Vowel table of this kind can be also sufficient for the classification of Uzbek vowels.
The first comparative vowel tables appeared in the 19th century. Their aim was to prove the common origin of some two modern languages belonging to the same family. In the 1920s of the XX century Prof. D.Jones suggested a classification based on the principle of the so called “cardinal vowels”. But these cardinal vowels are abstract notion and have nothing to do with the comparison of two languages from the typological viewpoint. The aim of our comparison is pedagogical. Every phoneme of the English language should be compared with the Uzbek vowels as comparison of an unknown language phoneme with that of one‟s mother tongue is of great use. The aim of our comparison (does not need any universal principle) and is to underline the specific features of vowel formation in the two languages in question. The tables of English vowels (accepted in our country) are based on the principles of acad. L.V.Sherba‟s vowel classification, later on Prof. G.P Torsueva‟s. and prof. V.A.Vasiljev‟s classification. 1. According to the position of the tongue in the horizontal plane English vowels are divided into 3 groups: close, medial, and open. Each of them are subdivided into: narrow and broad. 2. According to the part of the tongue: front, front-retracted, mixed, back advanced and back. In comparing the English and Uzbek vowel systems one more principle should be accepted - central vowels must be divided into: 1)central proper and central retracted.
Comparison shows, that: 1. the Uzbek [ ] should be classified as broad open central retracted vowel 2. the neutral vowel [ ] in English was pronounced by the English speakers examined as a broad medial, central retracted vowel. 3. the English [ ] was pronounced as an open narrow, central retracted vowel (evidently thanks to the new tendency to make it less back). As there is no subdivision of Uzbek vowels according to their quantity into long and short ones there is no perceptible, difference in their tensity or laxity. So the Uzbek vowel phonemes are differentiated by their qualitative features. The main philological relevant features of the Uzbek vowels phonemes are: front- central-back, according to which they may form phonological opposition: close- mid-open (сил-сел-сал, кыр-кир, кыл-кел, тор-тер, etc.) It should be kept in mind that there is a difference between the phonetic and phonological classification of phonemes. In the phonetic classification articulation and acoustic features are taken into consideration. Every point of its difference is of pedagogical use. But philological classification is based on the abstract differential features of phonemes. They serve the purpose of their differentiating, and are called philologically relevant attributes of phonemes. They may be defined with the help of philological opposition in some pairs of words.
Comparative Analysis of the English and Uzbek Vowels Systems As has been mentioned above the system of English vowel phonemes consists of monophtongs, diphtongized vowels and diphthongs. There are 21 vowel phonemes in English. They are:
There are 6 vowel phonemes in Uzbek. They are: The main point of difference of similarity between the English monophtongs, diphthongizes vowel and Uzbek may be summed up as follows: 1. The English and Uzbek vowel phonemes are characterised by the oral formation. There are no nasalized vowels in the languages compared. 2. According to the part of the tongue in the formation of vowel phonemes there are no front-retracted, central proper (or mixed) vowels in Uzbek. Resemblance may be found in the pronunciation of the back vowels in English and Uzbek. The Uzbek [ ] and the English [ ] are back-advanced vowels. The Uzbek [ ] and the English [ ], also [ ] are back retracted vowels. Therefore, it is comparatively easy to teach the Uzbeks pronunciation of back English vowels. 3. According to the height of the tongue in English there are vowels of all the 6 levels. Uzbek vowels belong to the narrow varieties of the 3 levels. In Uzbek there are no vowel phonemes like the English [ ],[ ], [ ]. These vowels are difficult for the student to master, especially the neutral vowel. But nevertheless the neutral [ ] can be compared with Uzbek unstressed in the words like кетди, келди, китоб etc. 4. According to the position of the lips in the formation of vowels English vowels are rounded without protrusion. Uzbek vowels [ ], [ are more closely rounded and protruded, where as the English , are slightly rounded and [ ], [ ] are closely rounded without protrusion. All the front and central vowels in English and Uzbek are unrounded. In articulating the English vowels [ ] and the Uzbek vowels [ ], [ ], the lips are
neutral. In articulating the English vowels [ ], [ ], [ ] and the Uzbek [ ] the lips may be either neutral or spread. In articulating the Uzbek [ ] the lips may be either neutral or spread. In teaching the Uzbeks to pronounce the rounded English vowels care should be taken not to protrude the lips. 5. Besides considerable qualitative difference there is a quantitative difference between vowel phonemes of English and Uzbek. Traditionally all English vowels are divided into short and long. Short-[ ], long [ ]. But at present the quantitative features of the English vowel phonemes have become their main property and quantity must be regarded as additional. The Uzbek vowel phonemes may only be differentiated by their quality. Philologically there is no quantitative difference in the Uzbek vowel phonemes . They are typical “middle sounds”, neither long nor short. Sometimes the English vowels [ ], [ ] may sound like the Uzbek [ ]and [ ] when they are pronounced short. This acoustic resemblance makes it possible to compare the vowels in question. 6. The English vowels are usually neutralised and may be substituted by [ ] in unstressed position. The Uzbek vowels may be used either in stressed or unstressed position. Thus there is little difference between stressed and unstressed vowels in Uzbek. It is better to pronounce the correct pronunciation of the English [ ] without trying to find any parallels in the native tongue. (Compare the Uzbek [ ] in an unstressed position. e.g. келди, кетди, айтди)ю
to the part of the tongue Front Central Back Height of the tongue front
proper front
retract. central
proper central
retract. back
advanced back
retract .
Close narrow
broad
Mid. (medial) narrow
broad
Open narrow
broad
The Diphthongs.
There are 9 diphthongs in English. [ ] The English diphthongs are stable combination, no syllable division is possible in them. They may form phonological opposition either with monophtongs, diphtongized vowels or with each other. E.g. bed-bid-bade-beard-bowed; letter-latter-later-litter [ ] is not an English phoneme, but a version of the vowel [ ]. The first element of the diphthongs, which is called the nucleus, is pronounced distinctly and clearly. The second element is glide. There are no diphthongs in Uzbek. According to the phonological approach combination of “vowel- j” and vice versa, such as the Uzbek u-u, u-y, u - o, u- a, are considered to be these sequences of a vowel and consonant [y-c]. They are not stable combinations but sometimes may be destroyed by the syllable division: суй-унчи, туй-улиш. The first element of the diphthongs [ ], to a certain degree acoustically resemble the Uzbek vowels[ ] and [ ]. Therefore it is not difficult to teach the Uzbeks to pronounce the nucleus of these diphthongs into [ j ] which is the most usual mistake in the pronunciation of the Uzbeks. There are also two combinations often used which consists of three vowels in English. They are: [ ]. The first element of them may be regarded as diphthongs and the third consists of the vowel. Usually they are called triphthongs. But there is no triphtongs in Uzbek. Comparative Analysis of the Consonants of English and Uzbek Consonants are speech sounds in the pronunciation of which noise is heard. The degrees of noise are different. There are consonants in the production of which only noise is heard, there are consonants in the production of which noise and voice are heard, and there are consonants in the production of which voice prevails over noise, but the fact is that noise in different degrees and forms is always present. Consonants do not give periodic voice waves. The consonants should be classified on the following 3 principles: 1. the manner of production 2. the active organs employed in the production 3. the place of production The last division is very important, due to it the principal difference in the formation of consonants in English and of consonants in Uzbek may be clearly shown. The system of English consonants consists of 24 consonants. They are: [ p, t, k, b, d, g, m, n, l, n, f, v, s, z, w, j, ] and the problematic phoneme . The system of Uzbek consonant phonemes consists of 25 phonemes. They are: [ п, т, к, б, д, г, м, н, л, нг, в, р, с, й, ш, з, х, щ, ф, р, ж, ч, с, =, \ ]
Some of the English consonants like [θ] and [ð] have no counterparts in Uzbek. There are also some Uzbek consonants which do not exist in the system of the English consonant phonemes. They are: [ х,ц, =, \ ] Many consonants have their counterparts in the languages compared, but they differ in their articulation. The difference in the articulation and acoustics of English and Uzbek consonants phonemes may be summed up as follows:
1. The English [ f,v ] are labio-dental fricatives, whereas the Uzbek [ф,в] are bilabial fricatives. They have labio-dental versions in dialects. So Uzbek [в] pronounced in the same way as the English [w], especially in the middle of words. E.g. =овун, совун, шавла, давлат, шавкат, =увват. Uzbek students often substitute [w] for [v]: wine-vine. 2. [ t, d, n, s, z ] also [ l ] are alveolars in English. The corresponding consonants in Uzbek are dentals. The English [ t, d, n ] require apical articulation, while their Uzbek counter-parts are dorsal (dental). The dorsal articulation does not exist in English. 3. The English [ r ] is a post - alveolar fricative, while the uzbek [ p ] is a post- alveolar rolled (thrilled) consonant. 4. The English [ l ] phoneme consists of the main member; the clear alveolar [ l ], used before the vowels and semi-vowel and its positional, also dialectal, versions dark [ l ] which besides being alveolar is also velar.The latter is used before consonants and in word final position. The Uzbek [ л ] is dental consonants. 5. The English [ h ] is pharyngeal. Uzbek has: a)the velar fricative [ x ], b) the pharyngeal fricative [ щ ]. The replacement of [ h ] by [ х ] is a phonemic mistake. The English [h] is weak and there is less friction than in the production of the Uzbek [х]. 6. The English affricates [∫], [t∫] and fricatives [ ] are palato-alveolar, while Uzbek [ ш, ж ] are post-alveolar fricatives and [ ж ] may be palatalised. 7. The English voiceless [ p,n,k,s] are more energetic than the corresponding Uzbek voiceless consonants. In the Uzbek [n, т, к ] there is less aspiration than in the corresponding English voiceless plosives. While the English voiced [ b, l, g, z] are less energetic than the corresponding Uzbek voiced consonants. 8. We regard the jotal combination [ ] as a separate phoneme in English. It is not a chance combination, it is very often used and there is a letter in the alphabet to denote it in spelling. According to its first element it may be regarded as a consonants phoneme [c-v] may form phonological opposition with the vowel [u:]. This opposition is an example of vowel-consonant dichotomy de-due (dew), loote-lute. 9. The English [ j ] is a palatal semi-vowel. The Uzbek [й] is a palatal fricative. Comp. yet- eт [йет]. 10. The English [ ] are interdentals. The interdental articulation is unknown in Uzbek. They are extremely difficult for the Uzbek to master. 11. The English sonants [m, l, n] in word-final position are very sonorous and somewhat prolonged before a pause, especially when they are preceded by a short vowel, whereas the corresponding Uzbek sonants are less sonorous in the same position. Comp. Bell, Tom, on; Uzbek: бел, том, он. 12. The English voiced consonants remain voiced in word final position and before voiceless consonants, while the Uzbek voiceless consonants become devoiced in the same position. The Uzbek students of English are apt to make phonologic mistakes: bed-bet, course-cause.
Comparative analysis of the morphological systems of English and Uzbek Morphological structure of words Word is usually characterised as the smallest naming unit consisting of a definite number of sounds and denoting a definite lexical meaning and expressing definite grammatical categories. It usually is a subject-matter of morphology, which studies the form and structure of the word. It is well known that the morphological system of the language reveals its properties through the morphemic structure of words. As a part of the grammatical theory morphology faces two segmental units of the language: the morpheme and the word. Morpheme is known as the smallest meaningful unit of the language into which a word may be divided. E.g. in the word writ-ER-s the root morpheme write expresses the lexical meaning of the word, lexical morpheme -ER showes the doer of the action denoted by the root morpheme, and the grammatical suffix -s indicates the number of the doers, i.e. more than one person is meant. Similar opinion can be said regarding the following units of the language, such as finish- ed, courage-ous-ly, un-prepar-ed-ness; тугал-лан-ма-ган-лик-дан-дир, бе- даъво-лар-дан. Being a meaningful segmental component of the word a morpheme is formed by phonemes but unlike the word it is elementary, i.e. it is indivisible into smaller meaningful components. There may be zero morphemes, i.e. the absence of morpheme may indicate a certain lexical or grammatical meaning: Cf: book _ - book-s, hope_ -hope-ful # китоб_ - китоб-лар; но-умид- _умид. In these examples the zero morphemes denoted by ( _ ) shows a singular form of the noun or absence of certain notion. In cases of “students come, children come, geese come” the morphs -s, en, and [i:] (Cf goose) are allomorphs of of the morpheme of plurality “-лар” in Uzbek. Like a word a morpheme is a two-facet language unit, an association of a certain meaning with a certain sound-pattern. But unlike the word a morpheme is not an autonomous body (unit) and can occur in speech only as a constituent part of the word. It cannot be segmented into smaller units without losing its constitutive essence. The morphemes can be divided into root (free) morphemes and affixal (bound) morphemes (affixes). A form is said to be free if tit may stand alone without changing its meaning; if not it is a bound form, as it always bound to something else. E.g: In the words sportive, elegant morphemes sport, elegant may occur alone as utterances, but the forms -ive,
The morphemes may be classified in two ways: a) from the semantic point of view, and b) from the structural point of view. Semantically morphemes fall into two classes : the root morphemes and non- root (affixational) morphemes. The root morphemes is the lexical nucleus of the word and it they usually express mainly the lexical meaning, i.e. „material‟ part of the meaning of the word, while the affixal morphemes can express both lexical and grammatical meanings, thus they can be characterised as lexical affixes (-er) and grammatical suffixes (-s ) in „writ-er-s‟. The lexical suffixes are usually used mainly in word building process to form new words (e.g. help-less, black-ness, teach-er, speak-er; нажот- сиз, =ора-лик, ы=ит-ув-чи, сыз-лов-чи), whereas grammatical suffixes serve to express the grammatical meaning of the word by changing its form (paradigm) {e.g. speaker-s, (plurality) John‟-s, (case ending denoting possession), come-s (person, number, tense, aspect, mood, voice)3rd person singular, present simple, indicative mood, active voice)}. Thus we can say that the grammatical significance of afixal (derivational) morphemes is always combined with their lexical meaning. e.g. verb - to write- ѐзмо= noun -writer - ѐзувчи
The derivative morpheme „-er‟ has a grammatical meaning as it serves to distinguish a noun from a verb and it has a lexical meaning i.e the doer of the action. The roots of the notional words are classical lexical morphemes. The affixal (derivational) morphemes include prefixes, suffixes and inflexions (grammatical suffixes). Prefixes and lexical suffixes have word building functions. Together with the root they form the stem of the word. Prefixes precede the root morpheme (im-personal, un-known, re-write), suffixes follow it (e.g: friend-ship, activ-ize, readi-ness, дыст-лик, фаол-лаш-тир-мо=, тайѐр-лик). Inflexions (word-forming suffixes express different morphological categories. Structurally morphemes fall under three types: a) free morphemes, b)bound morphemes, c) semi-bound morphemes. A free morpheme is the stem of the word, a great many free morphemes are root morphemes. (e.g.: London-er, spotrs-man- ship). A bound morpheme occurs as a constituent part of the word. Affixes are naturally, bound morphemes for they are always make a part of the word.(e.g.: - ness, -ship, -dom, dis-, pre-, un-; -чи, паз, -дон, бе-, сер-, но-) some root morphemes also belong to the class of bound morphemes, which always occur in morphemic sequences, i.e. in combinations with roots or affixes (e.g.: theor- in
ият.
Semi-bound morphemes are morphemes that can function in a morphemic sequence both as an affix and as a free morpheme. (e.g.: half an hour, well-known, sleep well, half killed; ярим соат, чала-жон, яхши кырмо=).
The root, according to its positional content of the term (i.e. border area between prefix and suffix) is obligatory for any word while affixes are not obligatory. Therefore one and the same morphemic segment can be used now as an affix, now as a root.
noun, verb); „throughout‟ -a composite word where „out‟ of the roots;
„outing‟ - a two morpheme word in which „out‟ is a root and „ing‟ is a suffix; „outlook, outline‟ - words in which „out‟ is a prefix; „look out, shut out, time-out‟ words in which „out‟ is a suffix; The abstract complete model of the English word is as follows: „prefix-root- lexical suffix-grammatical suffix‟ (or ‘Pr-Rt-Ls-Grs). e.g.: un-import-ant-ness, out-look-er-s The model of modern Uzbek word can be drawn similarly to the English one, i.e. „Pr-Rt-LxS-GrS‟ , e.g.: бад-жащл-лиг(к)-инг-из-дан-дир, но-умид-лик-нинг‟. But it should be kept in mind that the use of prefixes is not native for the Uzbek language, as the prefixes in this language is borrow mostly from Persian or Arabic languages. But being a representative of agglutinative (Turkic) languages Uzbek has a peculiarity of its own that makes it unsimilar to English. Unlike English in Uzbek the root of the word can be followed by a number of (up to 10) lexical and grammatical suffixes. E.G.: бе-маза-гар-чи-лиг-и-нг-из-дан бе-кор-чи-лик-дан-дир-да-а?
The syntagmatic connections of morphemes within the model form two types of structure in Modern English: W‟ = [Pr-(R-L)-Gr] W” = {[(Pr-R)-L]-Gr } As to the structure of the Uzbek words they display following models: W‟= [Pr-(R-L)-Gr] E.g.: но-умид-лик-нинг W”= (R-L)Gr(1-10) E.g.: механизация-лаш-тир-а-ол-ма-ган-лик-лар- и-нгиз-дан-дир-да-а? Parts of speech. A word is known as the smallest naming unit of the language. According to L. Bloomfield, word is a minimum free form. Close observation and comparison of words clearly shows that a great number of words have a composite nature and are made up of smaller units, each possessing sound-form and meaning. In other words, the term word denotes the basic unit of a given language resulting from the association of a particular meaning with a particular group of sounds capable of a particular grammatical employment. A word is therefore simultaneously a
The words of every language fall into classes which are called parts of speech. The problem of parts of speech is one of the controversial problems of modern linguistics. The theoretical side of this problem is the subject matter of the theoretical grammar. Therefore we should base our comparison of system of parts of speech on the generally recognised (acknowledged) opinions of grammarians. In order to make easier to learn the language the grammarians usually divide the word-stock of the language into some subclasses called in linguists the parts of speech. The main principles of classifying words into parts of speech are: their meaning, form and function, that is to say, the words of any language differ from each-other in meaning, in form and in function. Different parts of speech have different lexical meanings. E.g. verbs denote process or state; nouns express the names of objects, adjectives their properties... Some parts of speech have different grammatical categories. Verbs have the category of mood, tense, aspect, voice, person, number etc., nouns-case, number, adjectives-comparison, etc. The parts of speech also differ from each other in their syntactic function e.g. Verbs are used in the sentence structure as predicates, nouns-as subjects, adjectives as attributes... etc. All words of the comparing languages may be divided into three main groups: 1. Notional words; 2. Structural words; 3. Independent element.
Notional words have distinct lexical meanings and perform independent syntactic functions in the sentence structure. They serve as primary or secondary parts of the sentence. To this group belong the following parts of speech: Nouns,
mind that statives in Uzbek are often interchanged with adjectives and not treated as an independent part of speech. Structural words differ from the notional words semantically; their lexical meaning is of a more general character than that of the notional words (e.g.: in, and, even, alas). Moreover they sometimes altogether avoid it if they are isolated from the context (e.g.: article the, conjunction that, interjection oh etc.) Structural words do not perform any independent syntactic function in the sentence structure but serve either to express various relations between the words in a sentence. (e.g: trees in the garden, Tom and Joe, etc.) or to specify the meaning of the words (e.g.: there is a book on the table; the book on the table is mine, etc. The following parts of speech are to be treated as structural words : articles,
Download 0.58 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
|